Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Woodward: on 3/23/21 at 19:45pm UTC, wrote Clarification; 'base', as in the base of a soup One whole photon taking...

Georgina Woodward: on 3/23/21 at 6:52am UTC, wrote The Hafele-Keating experiment and the double slit experiment are consistent...

Georgina Woodward: on 3/22/21 at 21:03pm UTC, wrote What about photons? They are different from particles and objects that have...

Georgina Woodward: on 3/21/21 at 20:02pm UTC, wrote Position of a fermion particle, atom, ion or object such as a buckyball is...

Georgina Woodward: on 3/21/21 at 1:10am UTC, wrote Heads and tails of a coin are relative differences. As which is called...

Georgina Woodward: on 3/20/21 at 4:11am UTC, wrote I'd like to say something about Schrodinger's cat. Attribution of a state...

David Sager: on 12/20/20 at 23:53pm UTC, wrote System has refused the file upload. Try one more time to upload. If this...

David Sager: on 12/20/20 at 23:10pm UTC, wrote QuantumMechanicsModelAddendum.pdf



FQXi FORUM
September 26, 2021

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: Weinberg: Why quantum mechanics might need an overhaul [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Nov. 6, 2016 @ 18:27 GMT
Thanks to Steve Agnew for suggesting that we open a forum topic based on a recent interview with Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, by Tom Siegfried in Science News.

From the article:

One reason Weinberg thinks there’s a need for a new chapter in the quantum story is that those who think everything is fine with quantum mechanics take different sides in the debates about it.

“It’s a bad sign in particular that those physicists who are happy about quantum mechanics, and see nothing wrong with it, don’t agree with each other about what it means,” Weinberg says.

What do you think? Just because physicists disagree on which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, does that mean we have the whole thing wrong?

Bookmark and Share


Robert H McEachern wrote on Nov. 6, 2016 @ 18:38 GMT
The actual theory is not wrong. But all the standard interpretations of the theory are.

A New Classical Interpretation of Quantum Correlations

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karl H Coryat wrote on Nov. 6, 2016 @ 20:39 GMT
The most telling sentence in that excellent article is, "So far a compelling theory that succeeds in generalizing quantum mechanics does not exist."

The generalization that Weinberg seeks will be an information-first theory: Quantum mechanics emerges out of a deeper informational theory (it from bit). "It’s not really a good idea to hold new physical theories too strictly up to some preexisting philosophical standard," says Weinberg, and presently that standard is the insistence that bits come from its. This is the preexisting philosophical standard we need to get over. I have a book coming out in a couple of weeks, The Simplest-Case Scenario, that argues this and proposes a direction to move forward.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


jim hughes wrote on Nov. 7, 2016 @ 16:05 GMT
Weinberg clearly wants to preserve realism: something has to be "going on" without any observer, and there has to be an objective "out there" where it's happening. I don't think progress is possible while holding fast to those requirements.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 00:57 GMT
Jim, the difficulty is that we can not directly have knowledge of what is happening without forming a relationship with it, that relationship defines how it will be described; and not without utilizing apparatus or observer sensory system that affects the outcomes that are identified as the external reality, but are not.

While it is true that the measurements can not exist without the measurement process, seeming to come into existence upon measurement, it doesn't mean there is no pre-measurement reality.(Though that will be different because it is prior to the provocation causing the response that is taken as the measurement.) Reclaiming an independent non relative material reality dispels the grandfather paradox that is present, when only the relationship of observer to information is considered.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

jim hughes replied on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 02:33 GMT
I've seen many hopeful discussions about ideas for reclaiming, rescuing, restoring "physical" or "material" reality. And I don't see any progress towards that goal after almost 100 years. Nor do I see any meaningful new definitions of "material" or "physical" - and without those definitions, maybe the lack of progress isn't surprising.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 10:04 GMT
Jim,

What is wrong with general definitions of material? Things like the matter, or substance, or things with chemical composition. I often qualify it with made of atoms, or fermion particles. Material thigs are also actualisations, things within Object reality.

I have talked about 'physical on the 'rescuiing reality' page

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Nov. 10, 2016 @ 12:45 GMT
Weinberg makes a very good point. If quantum is so great, why do so many very smart people argue endlessly about what it means? Philosophy is a discourse that never ends since philosophy involves asking questions that really have no answers. This seems to suggest that quantum philosophy asks questions that have no answers.

Some quantum questions do not have answers and that is the rub. Why can we ever ask questions that we cannot then answer? Relativity asks and answers all questions up until the limits of the classical event horizon, but quantum questions persist even beyond the event horizon.

We live in a largely classical and a very causal reality where things happen because of local causes. Quantum phase messes with that classical causal reality since entanglement makes is seem like a cause can be a long distance from an effect. Since classical reality does not include quantum phase, it should not be surprising that there is no classical analog for entanglement.

What remains surprising is that very smart people continue to argue about the quantum nature of reality. My feeling is that classical matter spectra of a causal reality work great for many predictions of action. Classical matter spectra do not have phase, but quantum spectra do have phase. A matter spectrum with phase can show entanglement and a source can therefore exist as a superposition of spectra.

Until there is an acceptable story about our classical matter spectra that includes quantum phase, arguments will continue...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


S.E. Grimm wrote on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 13:33 GMT
“There’s always a third possibility,” Weinberg said, “that’s there’s something else entirely, that we’re going to have a revolution in science which is as much of a break with the past as quantum mechanics is a break from classical physics. That’s a possibility. It may be that a paper from a graduate student tomorrow morning will lay it out. By definition I don’t know what that would be.”

Well, FQXi have tried to invite him/her in during the last 10 years without any success. That isn’t incomprehensible, because you do not only need that really smart graduate student, there must also be clever scientists to recognise the extraordinary of the contents of his/her paper. Because a revolution in physics is not possible with the help of modern phenomenological physics, the foundations cannot be the same. Moreover, most clever scientists are very busy to promote themselves during their career, so they are not interested in awkward papers that are compelling their grandeur. So I feel sorry for that imaginary graduate student. He/she will face a very frustrated live: “Please, read my paper! Please, read it!” Nobody will take attention.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


jim hughes wrote on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 18:23 GMT
Marcus Meijer, I agree totally.

My outsider's perception is that within physics the 'realists' are now grabbing most of the attention, based on hopeful assurances that some new theory "restoring realism" is right around the corner. And who wants to oppose something called "realism"? We all want to be seen as realistic, to be in touch with reality. Framing the issue as being between "realism" and "idealism" takes advantage of the emotional baggage those words carry. It's also all too easy to dismiss an idea as "New Age nonsense", delivered with a patronizing smile.

These are political tactics that are only impeding progress.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 02:57 GMT
Hi All,

I agree with Weinberg's views that something needs to give, if we have to understand quantum mechanics better. I posted some of my thoughts here:

Going beyond space-time and quantum theory

Tejinder Singh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 00:53 GMT
Thanks Zeeya and Steve Agnew for introducing Weinberg's excellent article for discussion.

Recently Gerard 't Hooft published a book proving Quantum Mechanics can emerge from Cellular Automata (CA). He has bitterly complained of his peers ignoring his efforts here is his forum about this .

I found his ideas greatly encouraging, as my own rudimentary model for reconstructing physics from new first principles is essentially a CA, albeit with qubits for cells. Beautiful Universe Model

However for any brilliant graduate student to have half a chance to convince the mainstream (seemingly a multi-billion dollar empire with hundreds of thousands of physicists trodding the path from unquestioned verities) of his new ideas, a lot of backtracking has to be made. We have to check once more whether the most successful theories today are built on flimsy even wrong assumptions, leading to the hodge-podge and dead-ends of today. Here is my current fqxi essay tracing the trouble to an unwitting Einstein and suggesting the steps needed to be taken to clear the old and prepare for the new. I and many others much more qualified than me have been saying this for years; I am glad the Nobelist big-wigs of physics are now starting to speak out even half-hesitantly as they are doing.

Vladimir ( still hopeful in old age!)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


nimit theeraleekul wrote on May. 23, 2017 @ 09:07 GMT
Dear friends,

Let’s return to Zeeya first’s post, asking “Just because physicists disagree on which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, does that mean we have the whole thing wrong? ”.

My answer is NO! Physicists disagree on which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, because, as Feynman said, no one know WHAT REALY THE MECHANISM (of quantum mechanics) IS? Then what followed is that we are facing with the crazy problem such as wave function of what, how electron particle could manifest wave property, etc. Of course this does not mean that it has no physical mechanism; quantum mechanics is physics – not magic!

The reason behind THE NO MECHANISM (of quantum mechanics) was fist seems come from Einstein’s idea of light wave propagation using NO medium acting as the mechanism, and then was amplified by Feynman which said that light is a self-sustained wave that could propagate via mutual creation between electric and magnetic wave; but the problem is that both the waves are in phase then CANNOT do so because it will violate the principle of causality!

Of course I know that the Michelson – Morley experiment’s result was conventionally interpreted that there is no such thing as the aether; anyway it is not an obvious one, so it is better to prove by using a more clear cut – simple scientific experiment with magnetic field energy of the two solenoids in the paper attached.

Armed with a physical mechanism for the Schrödinger wave equation, then what we got is a more complete quantum mechanics; and which could explain how the wave collapse work, quantum entanglement is possible or not, etc.

Sincerely,

Nimit Th.

click here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


nimit theeraleekul wrote on May. 24, 2017 @ 03:15 GMT
Dear friends,

In my early post, I said that we could see detail of "simple scientific experiment with magnetic field energy of the two solenoids in the paper attached." Anyway it is just an introduction, so here I have attached the detail file below.

Sincerely,

Nimit Th.

attached file

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jess Tauber wrote on Nov. 1, 2017 @ 00:07 GMT
Hi folks. I just joined. I study mathematical patterning in electronic and nuclear shell systems, and have for nearly a decade. There seems to be a pervasive Pascal Triangle motivation for much of it, due to the fact that the quantum harmonic oscillator always delivers numbers of stable states whose values come from Pascal Triangle diagonals- which diagonal depends only on the dimensionality of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 1, 2017 @ 17:55 GMT
Well hello, Jess.

Nice to see some serious work presented on introduction. Ignore the inevitable nay sayers, they come out from under their bridges when scientific method is demonstrated in studious efforts. You have opened a new door for me, I'll have to read up some on Pascal. But it sounds to me that you have researched quite well, the questions that arise in theoretical representations of atomic structure and molecular arrangement.

Tetrahedra have interesting orientations when representing polarity. I personally like Octahedral representational schemes, passing a plane midway and parallel to any two opposites faces results in a Hexagon as most commonly found in molecular arrangements. Also constructing radii as additional axii through midpoints of the eight sides gives 14 potential dimensional orientations, which might be satisfying to String Theorists.

I thought it important that you can state that total shell energy is conserved over deformation in the simple harmonic oscillation model, as this would relate well with topological modeling of any unitary field definition of particulate matter. Too much emphasis is often given to the methodical difference between Quantum and Classical paradigms, when both are commonly incorporated in most areas if real research. And both seem to be embraced by your studies of mathematical patterning. Good Luck in finding kindred spirits, some do come here. I have been shying away for some time as there seems to be an army of irrelevant posters spewing blueline links of questionable origin and potential viral pedigree ever since Google implemented system wide reCAPTCHA protocols that over-rode the previous FQXi sub-routine. best jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jess Tauber replied on Nov. 2, 2017 @ 03:45 GMT
I'm including part of a post I sent to an email list I participate in, which is devoted to alternative periodic table description:

Given how successful (and exact) my recent findings about shell energy changes over deformation in the harmonic oscillator model were, I thought to look at the actual energies themselves.

If we multiply the shell energies by the shell occupancies, we end up with the following (all energies in terms of h-bar omega-bar):

1.5 x 2= 3 (1s)

2.5 x 6= 15 (1p)

3.5 x 12= 42 (1d2s)

4.5 x 20= 90 (1f2p)

5.5 x 30=165 (1g2d3s)

6,5 x 42= 273 (1h2f3p)

7.5 x 56=420 (1i2g3d4s)

8.5 x 72=612 (1j2h3f4p)

The shell energies are all 3x the following 1,5,14,30,55,91,140,204...

And differences between the latter are 4,9,16,25,36,49,64.... (and starting with 1 if we use 0 as initial shell energy).

The discerning reader (if there are any readers...) may notice that there is some relation to quantum number l of the highest spin orbital in these shells.

I wonder whether the fact that the sizes of harmonic oscillator period analogues are all doubled triangular numbers, and that the slopes of linear component rays are all multiples of 1/3 h-bar omega-bar per delta deformation, the multiplication by 3 is any accident here. I kinda doubt it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jess Tauber replied on Nov. 2, 2017 @ 04:21 GMT
The email I sent to the circulation list concerning the shell energy conservation:

Hi folks. On page 20 of https :// application .wiley -vch.de/

books/info/0-471-35633-6/toi99/www/struct/struct.pdf 'Appendix Nuclear Structure', which I generally use to analyze shell model data graphically, is the harmonic oscillator plot of energy levels versus deformation.

As...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jess Tauber wrote on Nov. 2, 2017 @ 19:08 GMT
My bisected skew rhombi models, where 4 successive periods cover a tetrahedron surface (2 same length smaller, 2 same length larger), seem to share a bit in common with Penrose tilings. They cannot be said to be periodically organized (from a tiling perspective), and they scale up (where tiles for 2p3s, 3p4s have the same outline as 3d4p5s, 4d5p6s, 4f5d6p7s and 5f6p7d8s, and so on. Only the 1s and 2s look different, if only because they only present two spheres each. I can't say if there is any quasicrystalline quality to this mapping. Perhaps one day a mathematician will tell me.

Jess Tauber

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
sherman loran jenkins replied on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 05:56 GMT
Crystal like, for sure. And I may be able to explain why I consider this to be a fact if you would like to know.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jess Tauber replied on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 13:52 GMT
Hi Sherman. Yes, I'd like to hear more about this.

BTW, are we allowed to post pictures here on the forum? I have a graphics of tetrahedral periodic table arrangements so people can see what I'm referring to.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

sherman loran jenkins replied on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 22:05 GMT
You can "add file attachments" 1MB file size limit. I am not sure of restrictions as to file type. Also you can see "link help page" for instructions on linking to other web sites.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David J. Sager wrote on Apr. 30, 2019 @ 03:51 GMT
Please see the attached file.

A model, built on orthodox Wave Mechanics with no changes, is validated against a list of experiments. John Bell: “so long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component, and so long as we do not know exactly when and how it takes over from the Schrodinger equation, we do not have an exact and unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory.” The model answers this. It solves the measurement problem, the wave function collapse problem, and the micro verses macro problem. The model shows that the EPR experiment and EPR like experiments do not require any communication between detection points. It shows that in Quantum Teleportation, the teleportation distance is not a factor. It shows that some dreams for functionality from entanglement are too optimistic, … and more.

Yet Quantum Mechanics Model is just a model. There was never any claim that this is the true material, structure and mechanism that runs the universe. It IS claimed that the Static Universe Model and Quantum Mechanics Model are much more useful than Copenhagen or any of the other interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. The author submits that it is a certainty that none of these is the true material, structure and mechanism that runs the universe.

It is my conjecture that, for those seeking the true material, structure and mechanism that runs the universe, Quantum Mechanics Model with the Static Universe Model is a much better starting point than Copenhagen or any of the other interpretations.

attachments: QuantumMechanicsModel.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David J. Sager replied on Aug. 28, 2019 @ 04:13 GMT
Please see The file QuantumMechanicsModel.pdf attached to the parent to which this is a reply. Please see the file UnifiedModel.pdf attached to this reply.

The main objective of Quantum Mechanics Model was to get a more sensible model of basic Quantum Mechanics. The secondary objective of Quantum Mechanics Model was to get a model of basic Quantum Mechanics that is fundamentally, right from the start, friendly to General Relativity.

UnifiedModel.pdf suggests an approach to get a Unified Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity Model, using the more friendly Quantum Mechanics Model. It is only a suggested approach. This is a call for Theoretical Research by others to either build such a unified model or convincingly show that this approach cannot lead to such a model.

attachments: UnifiedModel.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 28, 2019 @ 12:08 GMT
Hello Mr Sager,

Thanks for sharing your ideas about this unification of our quantum theory and general relativity. It's not easy to unify even G,c and h, that does not converge actually,we have a problem about the quantization of our quantum gravitation. We have several models trying to explain it but it lacks Something.The twistors of penrose,the loops,the E8 exceptional Lie group and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

David J. Sager replied on Dec. 20, 2020 @ 23:00 GMT
Please see the file Quantum Mechanics Model Addendum.pdf after the parent Quantum Mechanics Model.

A non-local model solves problems. Facing Reality. A few of Wigner’s Friends. A fun Popper’s Diffraction Experiment. Frauchiger – Renner Paradox: No paradox, but, in Copenhagen, we need some serious thinking here. No Physical Virtual Particles. Force Carrying Bosons. The Casimir Effect. The Lamb Shift. Saving the universe (fixing The Cosmological Constant).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David J. Sager wrote on Dec. 20, 2020 @ 23:10 GMT
QuantumMechanicsModelAddendum.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David J. Sager wrote on Dec. 20, 2020 @ 23:53 GMT
System has refused the file upload. Try one more time to upload.

If this doesn't work, you can get the file at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346650113_Quantum_M
echanics_Model_Addendum

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 20, 2021 @ 04:11 GMT
I'd like to say something about Schrodinger's cat. Attribution of a state or value for a property can be relative,, Velocity, momentum, kinetic energy, orientation, direction of rotation are all examples of that. Some characteristics are absolute. I.e, "viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative." definition from Oxford Languages. Un-decayed and-decayed (atom), unbroken and broken (flask) and alive and dead (cat) are all examples of absolute not relative differences. Herrin lies the problem with the thought experiment.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 01:10 GMT
Heads and tails of a coin are relative differences. As which is called depends on the relation to the observer or measuring device. Milled edge or smooth edge of the coin is an absolute difference. It can only be milled in all observation scenarios for smooth in all scenarios. The relation to the observer or measuring device does not affect the state outcome. From this argument: Some states are in actualized 'superposition'. Both states being potentially observable for that reason. Some so called superpositions are not actualized superpositions of relative states. Instead they are different variants of an unknown absolute state. These are different situations. Superposition of relative states applies to something real. Whereas superposition of absolute states is unreal.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 20:02 GMT
Position of a fermion particle, atom, ion or object such as a buckyball is absolute not relative. Such a particle can not pass through two slits of the double slit experiment at the same time nor be on two separate paths of an apparatus. What could be happening is the concentrated existence known as the particle passes through one slit or path with some environmental disturbance caused by its motion, and just environmental disturbance associated with the particle passes through/along the other. This allows interference of the particle associated disturbances to interfere when they meet; guiding the onward path of the particle in the double slit experiment.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 22, 2021 @ 21:03 GMT
What about photons? They are different from particles and objects that have mass. It makes sense that they are a disturbance of base existence, rather than just having some disturbance associated with them. The disturbance is cohesive and non dissipating. Which is likely due to the properties of the medium of base existence. Just because only whole photons are produced by electron energy level transition, and only whole photons can be detected, does not mean they are never divisible. If under particular circumstances they are divisible parts of the photon disturbance can take different paths. It would not be correct to say the photon takes both paths, as the parts are not photons. Also if the whole photon took both paths that would be double the energy. The last two posts are arguing against the oft repeated saying that- quantum particles can be in two places at once.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.